Record of Survey - Constructive Notice?

[Jim Frame]

Yolo County has introduced a map recording fee in addition to the map filing fee. According to the Recorder's fee schedule: "Effective January 1, 2025, maps submitted for filing are now also recorded into the Yolo County Official Public Record Indices."

Does this mean that a ROS now imparts constructive notice? Are other counties doing this?

[D Ryan]

That's a good one Jim. This has had me scratching my head. Some thoughts:

Humboldt County has assigned an Instrument No. to RS's for years (in addition to the standard Book & Page that we all go by) and I think they use it for some type of in-house indexing. I'm skeptical that that imparts constructive notice. I'd be curious how Yolo County will be doing it.

One of the primary elements I think of regarding constructive notice for deeds and such is the fact of a vestee being involved, allowing the document to enter the chain of title. Subdivision maps get it by virtue of Govt. Code 66468. Current vestees signing the map keeps the chain of title intact.

Curiously, although the "name and legal designation of the property" is required to be included on Records of Surveys per 8764 of the PLS Act, I confess to not being vigilant about that requirement, and neglected to give it much thought in all the years I checked RS's. Hmmm. I'd surmise County Surveyors addresses that in a variety of ways. I've always included the name of the client on mine, which is the common practice here, but that doesn't always mean the vested landowner(s). For instance, I'm in the process of filing one for a several miles stretch of road that borders multiple landowners, but it merely states the City as the "client" (and done at their request).

Still scratching my head, but leaning towards thinking the elements aren't there to properly get it into the chain of title. Then again, maybe my concern with the chain of title is off base, and other factors come into play.

Food for thought-
Dave Ryan
Arcata, Ca.

[steffan]

The following excerpt from "Stearns v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 18 Cal.App.3d 162" may provide guidance on the question:

[5] "The mere fact that an instrument has been recorded does not give constructive notice thereof unless there is some statute authorizing or permitting such instrument to be placed of record and at the same time making the effect of such recording constructive notice: (Dreifus v. Marx, 40 Cal.App.2d 461, 465-466 [104 P.2d 1080].) Numerous portions of the recording statutes specify the effect of constrictive notice. (E.g., Civ. Code, sections 1213, 1215 and 1219; Gov. Code, section 27282.) [3b, 4b] Private records of survey such as the Gully and Fulmore surveys are recorded, however, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 8762 et seq. These sections contain no provision that such recordation shall impart constructive notice."

A review of the aforementioned statutes reveals specific language stating which documents create constructive notice. The court above has implied that triggering language is necessary but is missing from the R/S language in the LS Act.

[Derek_9672]

This is an interesting topic as it relates to the $75 recording fee under GC 27388.1, in addition to the constructive notice aspect. Everyone seems to have a different attitude on whether that fee is charged for Records of Survey, depending on how they interpret the code, or maybe depending on the thoughts of the respective County Recorders/Surveyors. There's a distinction between "recording" and "filing" that is important. The law says nothing about new fees for filing. Maybe Yolo County is ensuring they can charge that $75 fee to "record" the map.

[dharri]

A deed is recorded because the original document is returned to the submitter. A record of survey is filed because the County Recorder retains the original document. That is the difference between recorded and filed.

[David Kendall]

There's a distinction between "recording" and "filing" that is important. The law says nothing about new fees for filing.

While I agree with your assertion, I can imagine the blank stare from the recording clerk when I ask for the refund of my $75 charge using this basis

[Jim Frame]

Maybe Yolo County is ensuring they can charge that $75 fee to "record" the map.

So far they haven't shown any inclination to do that, but one never knows...

It's bad enough that they publish the fees (e.g. $1,070 for checking a 1-sheet ROS) but then add a 6% "technology fee" that makes the real fee for checking that one-pager come out to $1,134.20.